Tiotropium (SPIRIVA®) in mild COPD: Is it worth it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:Tiotropium (SPIRIVA®) is used in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with persistent dyspnea despite using a short acting bronchodilator (SABD).This paper explores the role of tiotropium in the treatment of mild COPD. Methods:The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Pubmed, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched on February 2018.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated tiotropium in patients with mild COPD.Three authors assessed studies for eligibility. Outcomes included symptoms, quality of life, exercise duration, lung function, COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations, and serious adverse events. Results: Three RCTs were selected as the best available evidence. Based on the results of the main trial, quality of life and symptoms were improved with tiotropium as compared to placebo with a difference between groups at 24 months to be 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5 to 1.9; p=0.0011) using the COPD Assessment test (CAT) score. Frequency of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) requiring hospitalization was reduced by 10.3% (28.9% with tiotropium vs 39.2% with placebo) in patients receiving tiotropium. One RCT reported no statistically significant difference in exercise duration (27 ± 27 secs) in the tiotropium group vs 50 ± 21 secs in the placebo group; (p=0.4153). Oropharyngeal discomfort was more common with tiotropium (number needed to harm of 12) compared to placebo. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that tiotropium may reduce COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations and improve quality of life in patients with mild COPD.There is an increased risk of oropharyngeal discomfort with tiotropium.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".